Emile Durkheim, division of labour
The Division of Labour in Society has been called sociology’s first classic. In this work, Durkheim traced the development of the modern relation between individuals and society.
The thesis of The Division of Labour is that modern society is not held together by the similarities between people who do basically similar things. Instead, it is the division of labour itself that pulls people together by forcing them to be dependent on each other. It may seem that the division of labour is an economic necessity that corrodes the feeling of solidarity, but Durkheim argued that “the economic services that it can render are insignificant compared with the moral effect that it produces and its true function is to create between two or more people a feeling of solidarity.”
Durkheim distinguishes between mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity. A society characterized by mechanical solidarity is unified because all people are generalists. The bond among people is that they are all engaged in similar activities and have similar responsibilities. In contrast, a society characterized by organic solidarity is held together by the differences among people, by the fact that all have different tasks and responsibilities.
Durkheim argues that as the population of society increases, we move from mechanical to organic solidarity. The difference between the two is largely that in mechanical solidarity, division of labour is ascribed whereas in a society characterized by organic solidarity division of labour is meritocratic.
High division of labour (characterized by organic solidarity) leads to an increase in both the productive capacity and skill of the workman. It leads to a meritocratic society.
The thesis of The Division of Labour is that modern society is not held together by the similarities between people who do basically similar things. Instead, it is the division of labour itself that pulls people together by forcing them to be dependent on each other. It may seem that tile division of labour is an economic necessity that corrodes the feeling of solidarity, but Durkheim argued that “the economic ser ices that it can render are insignificant compared with the moral effect that it produces and its true function is to create between two or more people a feeling of solidarity.” Durkheim further argues that this solidarity leads to a new kind of social morality.
In societies with organic solidarity, less competition and more differentiation allow people to cooperate more and to all be supported by the same resource base. Therefore, difference allows for even closer bonds between people. Thus, in a society characterized by organic solidarity, there are both more solidarity and more individuality than there are in a society characterized by mechanical solidarity.
Further, the type of division of labour determines the hold of the collective conscience of the society, it determines the nature of laws (whether resti1tutive or repressive). It also determines the content of the conscience collective (mechanical solidarity is characterized by religious conscience collective whereas organic solidarity is secular in nature). Therefore, an increase in division of labour leads to making a person more autonomous, leads to more individual freedom along with an increase in social solidarity.
But division of labour may also be pathological and lead to anomie. When societies control over individuals weakens, it leads to anomie. Anomic division of labour is one of the 3 types of pathological forms which Durkheim identified.
It is found where individuals, increasingly isolated by their more specialized tasks, lose any sense of being integral parts of some larger whole. This reflects a lack of mutual adjustment among the parts of the social organism, Durkheim cites certain commercial and industrial crises, the conflict between capital and labour, and the “scholastic” specialization of scientific investigation among its examples. And what was particularly alarming, again, was that this form of social disintegration increased with the growth of the division of labour, and thus appeared to be its natural rather than pathological consequence.
Further, forced division of labour is also a pathological form of division of labour where positions are ascribed rather than being meritocratic, or people are forced to do things ignoring others.
Thus, Durkheim argued that division of labour can be both functional as well anomie for society. Durkheim believed the pathological forms of division of labour can be tackled by proper regulation and forming occupational groups so that workman doesn’t feel alienated and become more solidary.